The Supreme Court has received a review petition against the top court’s  judgment of July 27, upholding the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

CJI NV Ramana agreed to list the matter when the plea was mentioned before him on Monday.

CJI inquired if it was Justice Khanwilkar’s judgment. The lawyer told him that it was the same judgement. CJI then agreed to list it.

The Supreme Court had, on July 27, upheld the constitutional validity of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The judgment was pronounced by a bench of Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice C.T. Ravikumar on a batch of 241 petitions, challenging the validity of law.

The validity of Sections 3 (definition of money laundering), 5 (attachment of property), 8(4) [taking possession of attached property), 17 (search and seizure), 18 (search of persons), 19 (powers of arrest), 24 (reverse burden of proof), 44 (offences triable by special court), 45 (offences being cognizable and non-bailable and twin conditions for grant of bail by court) were upheld by the court.

It was held by the court that the supply of Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) was not mandatory under the PMLA proceedings, as the ECIR was an internal document and cannot be equated to a First Information Report.

“The ECIR cannot be equated with FIR, since ECIR is an internal document of ED,” noted the Bench.

It held that ECIR supply to the accused was not mandatory and the disclosure of reasons during arrest was sufficient.

The court said the ED manual was not to be published, since it was an internal document.

The Apex Court ruled that Section 3 had wider reach and it dealt with direct and indirect proceeds of crime. It said explanation to Section 3 was clarificatory in nature and that the expression “and” in Section 3 has to be read as “or”.

As per the Court, projecting a property as tainted would constitute money laundering as its own. An offence under Section 3 was based on illegal gain and the authorities could not prosecute someone under the 2002 Act, unless such a complaint was registered and produced before a competent forum.

It upheld the constitutional validity of Section 5, stating that the section provided a balancing act and showed how proceeds of crime could be traced.

The Apex Court ruled that Section 24 has nexus to object sought to be achieved.

The Bench further said that there was no merit to challenge Section 44, which did not suffer from arbitrariness. It ruled that this section will be dealt by the court and authorities in accordance with the earlier judgement.

It said the provision of Section 45 post the amendments was also legal and not unreasonable. The Court further permitted application of the underlying principle of Section 45, while granting bail.

The Supreme Court on Monday came down heavily on Allahabad High Court for granting bail to a person accused in fraud of Provident Funds worth Rs 22000 crore

A bench of Justice Khanwilkar of Supreme Court said that the High Court has no business to say when the Supreme Court has dealt with the merits of the case while dealing with the Mukul Rohtagi appearing for the Respondent said that the Supreme Court court order  of 15th  May 2020 recorded, ” we do not find any ground to release the petitioner on bail at this stage” which means that it is not a final decision forever.

The Court was made aware of the reason why the bail was needed. It was told that the respondent is 72 years of age and has got 5 stents in his heart already. Not only this, but also out of 17 accused ,16 have been released on bail. All of which have been released on bail on merits.

ON the observation of the HC that the respondent was not involved in making investment in DHFL, etc. Justice Khanwilkar observed – If HC is considering the case on medical grounds we have no difficulty but if it makes observations on the merits of the case, it is not acceptable.

Also Read: Adoption procedure: Supreme Court issues notice on PIL seeking Central scheme

To this Mr Rohtagi Submitted that by the CBI’ affidavit it is clear that the respondent was not involved in any misdeed and it is on merits before the High Court.

J Khanwilkar said that “regardless of whatever CBI has said in its affidavit, the HC cannot overlook the merit of Supreme Court order.

Mr Rohtagi again emphasized on the fact that 16 out of 17 accused have got bail from the High Court, trial court and in some cases, from the Supreme court.Transfer of the case to CBI was in March 2020 and after that only one chargesheet has been filed after transfer. No further charge sheet is being filed.

ASG, Aishwarya Bhati appearing for the petitioner/CBI- the investigation was handed over in March 2020 after which one supplementary chargesheet has been filed by CBI and investigation is continuing qua the money trail.

Also Read: Vyapam whistleblower: Supreme Court declines to interfere with probe against Anand Rai

On the issue of grant of bail to other 16 accused, ld ASG Submitted that they are trying to draw a distinction for  the case of 3 accused from the rest. One is Ayodhya Prasad Mishra, second is Sudhanshu Dwivedi and third is P. K Gupta who has been granted bail and the petitioners are going to file an SLP against his release on bail as well.  ASG contended that they all are UPPCL employees and were the custodian of the money of the employees

Counsel for CBI on instructions submits that they have been advised to file SLP against the order granting bail to co- accused PK Gupta, Sudhanshu Dwivedi and Ayodhya prasad Mishra. According to the petitioners these 3 accused are similarly placed.
Proposed SLP to be filed on or before 20th April

Next date of hearing is 25th April

Also Read:

• Supreme Court issues notice in plea against bail granted to man accused of rape
• Centre support Karnataka miners in Supreme court on iron-ore export
• Supreme Court stays NCLAT order in DHFL case
• Allahabad High Court disposes of plea seeking custody of girl kept in Nari Niketan against her wishes